Moralpolitik

Realpolitik, according to ChatGPT, is a political approach that gives priority to pragmatism, power and the interests of the state over ideological or moral considerations in decision-making. The key characteristics of realpolitik are a focus on the national interest and power as the main criteria of political action, and pragmatic decisions bound not by values but by what is effective and achievable. Realpolitik often involves compromises, diplomatic maneuvers, even manipulation or military force, and disregards moral ideals if they hinder the achievement of political goals. Especially in this last characteristic—disregarding moral ideals—realpolitik comes close to a political doctrine known in Slovenia by the slogan “neither left nor right, but forward.”

When you google who the main protagonists of realpolitik were in the past, the internet offers you a colorful picture of personalities, from Machiavelli to Bismarck and Henry Kissinger. Frequently cited examples of realpolitik in modern times include American (and not only American) policy toward Saudi Arabia, or Germany’s policy toward Putin’s Russia until recently.

Ideological purists and moral preachers will surely cry shame at all this. On the other hand, it is also true that international politics, and domestic politics too, in tackling the greatest challenges and threats, often require dialogue and cooperation beyond one’s own ideological convictions and interests. Without pragmatism, some will surely argue, there would have been no end to the Cold War or nuclear disarmament (while that still existed as an active international process).

I can’t resist the temptation to write that the right path lies somewhere in between. On the one hand, a purist insistence on consistent respect for moral principles often runs into the obstacle of reality and turns into impotent moaning and complaining, or even into adjusting reality and facts and creating parallel realities in which we can lie to ourselves that we remain faithful to our ideals. An instructive example of the latter is the discourse of Slovenian “peace activists” regarding Russia and its aggression against Ukraine.

On the other hand, in the conflict between interests and ethics, the pragmatism of realpolitik can side so obviously and exclusively with (its own narrow political and economic) interests that it loses all moral integrity and credibility and turns society and the world into a jungle in which only the strongest and most ruthless prevail and decide. A good example of this is Western policy toward the bloody tragedy in the Middle East.

But we cannot and must not look for a middle path between interests and values at the arithmetic midpoint, still less in subordinating ethics to narrow and short-term political and economic ambitions. When it comes to positioning themselves between interests and morality, authoritarians and democrats are not in the same position. The former need not concern themselves with morality; trampling on ethical and humanist principles is, so to speak, part of their job description. It is different with liberal democracies, that is, states that base their social and political orientation on the values of democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights. They have very little room for maneuver when it comes to ignoring ethics and morality in their own policies. They should be aware of this. But evidently they are not. And if we are looking for the reasons why liberal democracy as a political and social system is in such crisis today, this is certainly one of the most important.

In today’s world, which increasingly resembles the jungle mentioned above, ruled by the most uncouth primates, attitude toward and respect for fundamental civilizational, humanist and democratic principles is for liberal democracies not a question of momentary interests but of survival. Without a turn from realpolitik to moral politics, democracy as a social and political system is doomed to long-term subordination, or even extinction.

The conflicts and attacks on the most fundamental values of solidarity, humanism, non-discrimination, respect for human dignity and freedom that we are witnessing in today’s world are not a sideshow but the central clash between the concept of a democratic society based on the Enlightenment and the authoritarian, anti-woke, russkiy mir bullying pushed by Trump, Putin and their increasingly emboldened cronies scattered around the world and Europe.

What the final outcome of this civilizational conflict will be is hard to predict for now. The bullies seem to have the advantage, because they are big, ruthless and loud. But in the end what will also count is how those respond who—at least declaratively—advocate and swear by the values of a civilized, free and humanist society. What the world will look like tomorrow, and whether there will still be room in it for democracy and international order, is being decided in Ukraine and in the Middle East, and also on every occasion, big or small, when politicians committed to democracy must decide where they stand between momentary interests (as they themselves interpret them) and ethical conduct.

That democracies are not powerless in this situation was shown by the recent elections in Canada. The price of flattery and compromise, meanwhile, was paid a few days ago by the governing Labour Party in Britain’s local elections. Moral horse-trading with Trump across the pond is grist to the mill of the little Trumps at home.

This is a lesson our domestic defenders of democracy and democratic values should not ignore. Their fiery moralizing for domestic consumption rings hollow and two-faced if they are prepared to shove their principles into a corner so quickly for every opportunistic photo with Slovenia’s son-in-law or his oligarchs, and then even post these snapshots on social media, with nebulous captions that sound not only tasteless but also utterly frivolous.